Republicans blast Hillary Clinton's Benghazi account

Conservative writers and Republican groups wasted no time Friday skewering Hillary Clinton’s latest account of the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Clinton, a leading possible Democratic presidential contender, offers her perspective on the attacks and their aftermath in her upcoming book, “Hard Choices.” POLITICO obtained an early look at the chapter on Benghazi, an issue conservatives have used to try to bludgeon the former secretary of state.

The Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes ran through a number of contentions put forth by Clinton in a piece headlined, “Hillary’s Failed Benghazi Spin,” offering a point-by-point take-down. He wrote that Clinton’s assertion that “Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people” is “just false. It’s spectacularly, flamboyantly untrue. There are literally dozens of examples that disprove her claim. There is no chance that Clinton actually believes it. Nobody else does.”

National Review’s Jim Geraghty referred to an incident from the 2008 election in which Clinton walked back a description of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire in the 1990s.

“Hillary’s assessment of the events in Benghazi that night was undoubtedly shaped by the PTSD she had from escaping snipers in Tuzla, Bosnia,” Geraghty tweeted. In a blog post, he explained that the message was designed “to remind people that Hillary Clinton is willing to lie, quite dramatically, boldly, and shamelessly, even in ways that can be easily checked and refuted, when her political aspirations are at stake.”

The Republican National Committee also delved into Clinton’s past, listing a series of decisions she made at the State Department and in politics, and concluding that “the more Americans learn about “hard choices” like these, the less likely they will be to choose Clinton in any future election.”

Multiple probes have since tried to determine what prompted militants to attack the mission and whether the tragedy could have been prevented. The latest, involving a select committee in Congress, is being spearheaded by Republicans but also includes Democrats — in keeping with the wishes of Clinton allies.

POLITICO reported on Clinton’s account of Benghazi as her aides Friday gave a briefing to Democratic-leaning groups about her book’s approach to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, which killed four Americans, including Amb. Christopher Stevens.

Clinton’s written recollection of the events seems at least partly intended to give fellow Democrats a framework to defend her and themselves in 2014, a midterm election year, amid the latest investigation.

A number of the previous probes have faulted security lapses. Clinton addresses that issue in the Benghazi chapter, discussing what she was personally made aware of regarding requests for additional resources. She says she was not informed about cables asking for more security at the consulate: “That’s not how it works,” she writes. “It shouldn’t. And it didn’t.”

But Ed Morrissey of Hot Air, questioning Clinton’s knowledge about security decisions affecting the consulate, charged: “This is nothing more than a shabby attempt to avoid responsibility for the decisions made under her command at State. It’s the latest in a series of absurd dodges, and one that Clinton no doubt hopes the media will project as definitive so that continuing questions will continue to get the what difference at this point does it make treatment.”

That emphasized phrase echoed a Clinton comment during congressional testimony last year, which some Republicans said signaled she wasn’t invested in determining what led to the attack. A blog post Friday from the Republican group America Rising PAC also argues that “it appears Clinton offers few if any real regrets about how she handled the attack.”

Clinton hotly disputes the suggestion that she did not care about what happened. She writes in the forthcoming book: “Nothing could be further from the truth. And many of those trying to make hay of it know that, but don’t care.”

People who have persisted in questioning what happened are unlikely to be fully satisfied by the latest Clinton account. Regardless, Clinton sets a defiant tone. She signals that she believes the probes have devolved into a partisan battle, and suggests she won’t keep re-litigating the matter as she raises her public profile even further with the launch of her book on June 10.

Meanwhile, some Republicans appeared to be holding their fire, at least for now.

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who is chairing the Benghazi committee, told CNN that “There is a time and a place for everything, and her book tour is neither for me,” while a representative for Sen. Rand Paul —a possible Republican 2016 contender who has been sharply critical of Clinton — said the Kentucky lawmaker didn’t have a comment at this time.